Subject: Re: Apple and Open Source
From: Craig Brozefsky <craig@red-bean.com>
Date: 04 May 2001 13:30:53 -0500

"Stephen J. Turnbull" <turnbull@sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> writes:
> >>>>> "Brian" == Brian Behlendorf <brian@collab.net> writes:
> 
>     Brian> But even if it were the same, access to the source code of
>     Brian> a program one still has to pay for is still better than no
>     Brian> access at all.
> 
> It may in fact be the best of the _possible_ worlds.  A world in
> which all participants have a perfect understanding of the needs of
> all others, and the ability to compromise among them appropriately
> is not possible.  (A world without greed?  _Much_ easier; greed is
> _not_ the central problem.)

I'm inclined to think it isn't tho.  My primary reason is that pricing
for the software is still based on the idea of the program's scarcity.
So you have a price analysis tied to an artificial scarcity, which is
divorced from the labor that went into the production of the software.
The two are indeed tied together, a company selling licenses must make
enough to pay for it development costs, but it's mediated by all the
profit taking and internal machinations of businesses.  The invisible
hand becomes as indiscriminant as ever.

> The price mechanism is still the most accurate way we have of
> eliciting consumer valuations.

But it does us no good if you're measuring variable X, which has only
a marginal connection to your goal state.

-- 
Craig Brozefsky                             <craig@red-bean.com>
                                  http://www.red-bean.com/~craig 
In the rich man's house there is nowhere to spit but in his face
					             -- Diogenes